posted on February 6, 2003 09:40:01 AM new
A reporter just tried to pin Ari Fleischer down about the function of the post war military in relation to the oil interests in Iraq. He dodged that question but said that the military would be there as long as necessary.
Helen asked about the division of oil and Fleisher countered that by asking her where she got that idea. LOLOL!!!
posted on February 6, 2003 10:18:34 AM new
Bear, seem the Charles De Gaulle (France's carrier group) has 'deployed' to the eastern Mediterranian ... to join the USS Truman (I think) for what they said were 'exercises'.
"The French Defense Ministry said "the maneuver was planned a long time ago and is not related to the "international situation," a reference to tensions over Iraq and threats of war by the United States and Britain. The 43,000-ton warship, which carries 40 aircraft, is scheduled to return to Toulon at the end of the training exercise on Feb. 25."
The truth may be that the French are concerned that their oil interests may be lost in Iraq if they don't cooperate more closely with Bush. I doubt that this is a training exercise.
Take the dollar sign out, close the space and make sure that the bracket after the url is pointed toward the url. It should look like this...if it works.
posted on February 6, 2003 12:06:22 PM new
>Bear, seem the Charles De Gaulle (France's carrier group) has 'deployed' to the eastern Mediterrania
LOL! I nearly fell out of my chair when I just read that! That ship may have aircraft on it, but that doesn't mean that they can launch or recover them at sea! I was just watching a Science Channel show on the list of Four Worst Millitary Boondoggles in modern history and the De Gaulle toped the list!
For those of you who have not served onboard an aircraft carrier or are closely familiar with them, let me tell you that these ships a Miracles At Sea! It may look like it's easy to launch and to recover aircraft onto the flight deck while moving at sea, but that is pure illusion! The dificulties would take at least an hour's TV documentary to explain, so I can't list them here. You'll just have to take my word for it.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union discovered the truth the hard way. Thier navy so badly wanted aircraft carriers and they built many of them. But not a single one of them was ever successful at launching and reccovering aircraft while moving at sea! Most of them broke down within minutes of trying and had to sit in port for show. They NEVER got a single one to work!
And that's what's been happening with the De Gaulle. It's been sitting in port so that disasters can't happen with it. So expensive to build that there is no way that they could ever afford to tear it apart and to rebuild it, it sat at dock as a symbol to French technology. Now it is on its way to the Gulf to participate in exercises with OUR navy? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
posted on February 6, 2003 12:13:24 PM new
I hope it didn't hurt when you fell
The Charles de Gaulle, which entered service in May 2001, was in port in Toulon after a seven-month tour in the Indian Ocean as part of the fight against terrorism.
thats part of the article.... no, I don't know as much as the Science Channel about carriers.... why then, are they doing training excersises?
If it entered service in May 2001, to my math, thats fairly new, I'd think.
posted on February 6, 2003 12:45:49 PM new
Borillar-That ship may have aircraft on it, but that doesn't mean that they can launch or recover them at sea!
Ok I missed the last paragraph of that article:
More than 770 sorties were carried out from the deck of the aircraft carrier, which intercepted more than 2,000 ships in the hunt for al-Qaida operatives sneaking out of Afghanistan (news - web sites) via the seas.
Ok doesn't sorties mean 'missions'?
if 770 sorties were carried out, then wouldn't that be something like a total of 1500 or so, that took off and landed? (in laymans terms)
We're not talking the Russians here, but seems like the French did use this ship successfully in Afghanistan
posted on February 6, 2003 01:07:56 PM new
The Charles de Gaulle is just on the way to deliver a catered dinner (hamburgers et pommes frites) to the folks on the Truman
posted on February 6, 2003 01:09:00 PM new
Thank you, that was interesting. Its not as 'new' as I thought, but it did show it can 'take off and land' fighter jets.
Borillar, hope you didn't break any ribs or any other bones fallin
President Jacques Chirac may have shown no sign yesterday of softening his opposition to swift military action against Iraq, but diplomats and analysts are convinced that Paris, having unwittingly painted its way into a corner, has already started looking for the way out.
The unscheduled departure from Toulon early yesterday of France's nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle for three weeks of manoeuvres in the eastern Mediterranean - including joint exercises with America's USS Harry Truman - is as clear a sign as any that Mr Chirac has no intention of burning France's transatlantic bridges just yet.
The French president last night reiterated his opposition to war against Iraq without giving UN weapons inspectors as much time as they needed to search for banned weapons.
But analysts say the perception of France as belonging to the same determinedly anti-war camp as Germany is a false one that Paris stumbled into, more or less by accident, during last month's emotional celebrations of the 40th anniversary of the Franco-German friendship pact.
"To say that France and Germany's positions were the same was an error," said Jacques Beltran of the French Institute of International Relations. "Germany is against a war under any circumstances; that is not and has never been France's position. It was a gesture of solidarity towards Berlin that upset Washington."
Together with some unexpectedly fierce anti-war comments - also, diplomats say, largely unintended - by the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, the result has been to bracket France with Germany in a pacifist alliance that has exasperated America and angered eight European leaders enough to push them into publishing their support for the US position.
That is not to say that Mr Chirac will necessarily swing behind a war, and certainly not one that risks getting under way in the next few weeks. But he is plainly unhappy at France's current contretemps with the US, and well aware that if Paris does veto a second UN resolution, the United Nations itself - and therefore France's weight within it - will be severely weakened.
French observers expect him soon to start "repositioning" France, or restating its original position, very soon.
"France's initial position was clear and will end up earning the respect of almost everyone - even, eventually, the US," said one French foreign ministry source. "It was that war is the last option, and that it is down to the security council alone to make the final decision. That message has somehow got muddied in the past few weeks."
If Paris could accomplish the "relatively straightforward" task of reoccupying that lost ground, Mr Beltran said, Mr Chirac could then find "the perfect way out" of its current impasse in any halfway solid evidence against Iraq presented by Colin Powell today or by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, on February 14.
The other factor Mr Chirac will have to take into account is French domestic public opinion, which is firmly set against war: between two-thirds and three-quarters of the French are opposed to any action against Iraq, even with UN backing. But after a crushing election victory and at the beginning of his second term, most analysts say this should not prove a significant obstacle.
Similarly, Mr Chirac is likely to discount the likely domestic political opposition: the Socialists have in recent days set out a firm anti-war stall, demanding that France use its security council veto.
"I think Chirac will consider France's position on the international stage more important than his short-term popularity at home," Mr Beltran said. "My estimate is that he will end up backing a firm second resolution and a clear ultimatum to Iraq, and then - if there is plainly no other way out - he will back a war."
posted on February 6, 2003 02:07:33 PM new
NearTheSea, illusion is everything. I'd have to see it to believe it. Even the British can just barely manage the technology. That's one reason why they switched to VTOL-type aircraft.
posted on February 6, 2003 02:17:45 PM new
Borillar's right,
It's called building a "carrier" when you can't afford to build a "CARRIER". It's dressing for countries that still want to be regarded as world powers.
CNN just popped this up:
-- President Bush says Saddam authorized commanders to use chemical weapons and the U.S. "will not wait" for Iraq to unleash such attacks.
Maybe we've supplied the froggies with a little intel.
posted on February 6, 2003 05:37:56 PM new
Colin "PRESENTED" the "evidence" well, but that has little to do with the facts.
It's all smoke and mirrors. We were shown arial photos of other weapon manufacturering plants in the past, and bombed them and they turned out to be a hospital or something. What makes you believe those photos and conversations are real.
What is the main objective AFTER we oust Saddam?
the following is taken from an article written by Ralph Nader a couple of days ago.
".......U.S. oil multinationals have been banned from Iraqi oil fields for more than a decade. While French, Russian and Chinese companies are lined up to profitably tap into Iraq's reserves, Bush Administration officials incredulously claim that Iraqi officials installed by the U.S. will independently choose who produces the oil after a war.
Plans are already being laid. The Wall Street Journal reported on January 16th that officials from the White House, State Department and Department of Defense have been meeting informally with executives from Halliburton, Shlumberger, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips to plan the post-war oil bonanza. "
posted on February 6, 2003 06:26:16 PM new
You know, if Saddam hadn't been such a big mouth or threatened Israel so much, he could still be sitting on his weapons and torturing his people for decades to come. As it is, he's made himself the perfect target with his foolish brand of politicing and now it is going to cause the excuse that is needed for our forces to go into Iraq and take the country away from him. After all, we're not only the World's Greatest Superpower, we're also the World's Larget Policeforce.
posted on February 7, 2003 04:40:04 AM new
"The nuclear bomb hoax"
Printed on Friday, February 07, 2003 @ 00:00:19 EST
http://yt.org/article.php?sid=1055
By Imad Khadduri
Former Iraqi nuclear official
(Canada)
– In his speech in front of the U.N. Security
Council on February 5, 2003, Colin Powell did not offer any viable new
evidence concerning Iraq's nuclear weapon capability that Bush and his
entourage continue to wave as a red flag in front of the eyes of the
American people to incite them shamefully into an unjust war.
On the contrary, the few flimsy so-called pieces of evidence that were
presented by Powell regarding a supposed continued Iraqi nuclear
weapon program serve only to weaken the American and British
accusations and reveal their untenable attempt to cover with a fig
leaf their thread bare arguments and misinformation campaign. The
false and untrue pieces of evidence follow:
Powell, in a theatrical query, asked why the Iraqi scientists were
asked to sign declarations, with a death penalty if not adhered to,
not to reveal their secrets to the IAEA inspection teams. Exactly the
opposite is true. The four or five, as I recall, such declarations,
which I read in detail, held us to the penalty of death in the event
that we did not hand in all of the sensitive documents and reports
that may still be in our possession! Had Powell's intelligence
services provided him with a copy of these declarations, and not
depended on "defector's" testimonies who are solely motivated by their
self-promotion in the eyes of their "beholders," and availed himself
to a good Arabic translation of what these declarations actually said,
he would not, had he any sense been abiding by the truth, mentioned
this as "evidence."
This is exactly the cause of the second untruth brandished by Powell:
that Iraq is hiding or is still working (it is hard to discern from
the tangle of his word what is really meant) on its "third" uranium
enrichment process by referring to the cache of documents seized in
the house of Faleh Hamza.
Faleh, according to my explanation of the above declarations, did not
consider the reports on his work to be covered under this declaration
for the following reason: Faleh did dabble during the eighties at the
Physics Department in the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center itself --
but not under the nuclear weapon program activities which came under
the label of the PetroChemical 3 program -- with the uranium laser
enrichment process using a couple of medium range copper lasers.
His low-key research concluded that it was not yet viable to pursue
this line of enrichment on a production scale and the whole project
folded up after it reached its cul-de-sac in 1988. He packed up and
then joined the PC3 working on the Calutron enrichment method in 1989.
Furthermore, this was well documented and explained in our final
report to the IAEA inspectors in late 1997, which they confirmed and
referred to in their own final report on the matter.
Yet, fully aware of this fact, the James Bondian and insulting manner
with which UNMOVIC (following in the footsteps of their CIA
infiltrated UNSCOM predecessors) invaded the home of Faleh and
searched it, even the private belongings of his family to the glare of
the cameras, added insult to injury and exponentially increased
Faleh's position vis-à-vis the authorities who were trying to protect
the scientists from such American theatrics.
Arrogantly, the Americans are wondering why other scientists are not
coming forward. Even worse, Blix chose to wave this torn flag in front
of the Security Council in his report on Monday January 27, 2003. This
fact alone was one of the reasons I have decided to come out. Even
Mohamed Baradei, the head of the IAEA, chided Blix the following day
for not taking into account IAEA's knowledge on this matter, which was
that the 3000 pages of documents were financial statements and Faleh's
own lifetime research work, and had nothing to do with the nuclear
weapon program. That is why he kept them at his home. It was becoming
apparent that Blix was succumbing to the American pressure tactics and
leaned backwards to provide them with flimsy "proof" at the expense of
his supposed fairness and mandate as a U.N. official. Powell grasped
even this straw.
Powell only accused but did not provide any evidence that Iraq had
tried to get nuclear grade fissile material since 1998. He vainly gave
the impression that everything was set and readily waiting for just
this material to be acquired and the atomic bomb would be rolling out
the other door. He did not bother to ask himself the following
questions:
Where is the scientific and engineering staff required for such an
enormous effort when almost all of them have been living in abject
poverty for the past decade, striving to simply feed their families on
$20 a month, their knowledge and expertise rusted and atrophied under
heavy psychological pressures and dreading their retirement pension
salary of $2 a month?
Where is the management that might lead such an enterprise? The
previous management team of the nuclear weapon program in the eighties
exists only in memories and reports. Its members have retired,
secluded themselves, or turned to fending for their livelihood of
their families.
Where are the buildings and infrastructure to support such a program?
The entire nuclear weapon program of the eighties has been either
bombed by the Americans during the war or uncovered by the IAEA
inspectors. It is impossible to hide such buildings and structures.
Powell should only take a look at North Korea's atomic weapon
facilities, or perhaps even Israel's, to realize the impossibility of
hiding such structures with the IAEA inspectors scouring everything in
sight.
Powell need only ask those on the ground, the IAEA inspectors
delegated by the U.N. upon America's request, to receive negative
answers to all of the questions above. Instead, he chose to fabricate
an untruth.
Finally, the infamous aluminum pipes that are supposed to be used in a
centrifugal enrichment process. Powell and Bush should be able to
relax regarding this point, for they would have at least a ten-year
attack period before Iraq would be able to militarize these pipes.
According to the "American experts" themselves, such a process would
need kilometers of strung out, highly tuned, delicately controlled
spinners to fulfill their ill-wish for Iraq. Not to be noticed by
their satellites, PowerPoint presentations and colored arrows would
then be an intelligence folly. This is not even mentioning the lack of
a stable electric power supply in Iraq or the phantom of highly
technical staff to run these kilometers long "very high grade and
expensive" mortar casings that are not made to U.S. military
standards. Perhaps Powell's grievance was, "How dare Iraq think of
such expensive mortars?"
Powell said: "Let me now turn to nuclear weapons. We have no
indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons
program." This verges on being humorous. But as the Arabic proverb
goes: The worst kind of misfortune is that which causes you to laugh.
[Imad Khadduri has a MSc in Physics from the University of Michigan
(United States) and a PhD in Nuclear Reactor Technology from the
University of Birmingham (United Kingdom). Khadduri worked with the
Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission from 1968 until 1998. He was able to
leave Iraq in late 1998 with his family. He now teaches and works as a
network administrator in Toronto, Canada. He has been interviewed by
the Toronto Star, Reuters, and various other news agencies in regards
to his knowledge of the Iraqi nuclear program.
posted on February 7, 2003 05:49:55 AM new
"Who is Khidhir Hamza?"
Thanks for posting that url, krs. He's being extensively quoted and used as an authority on the Iraqi nuke program, and some of the excerpts I was seeing were contradictory. There have been ng postings questioning his credentials also.
Time to go incite peace now.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on February 7, 2003 07:43:14 AM new
Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the United Nations and showed them the evidence of what his colleagues there already knew to be true, but were hoping they would not have to confront: Saddam Hussein is a lying sack of sand.
"The evidence of Iraqi cheating and lying was presented in word and picture; undeniable and indisputable. Except by the Iraqis, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Palos, and the French."
Rich Galen, "Millings," 2/7/03
Did you know that they're having an auction on e-Bay. Someone found a shipment of old French military rifles. 'For Sale. French rifles. Excellent shape. NEVER FIRED and ONLY DROPPED ONCE.' They have a new French tank also. It has 3 reverse gears and one forward - in case they are attacked from behind. But I guess this all does not matter now. I heard last night that the French surrendered to the Salvation army.
As the independent journalist I.F. Stone commented decades
ago, “Every government is run by liars, and nothing they say
should be believed.” Stone was not equating all governments
or asserting that they always lie. But he was pointing out that
skepticism is essential, and no government’s claims should be
automatically accepted. It is our challenge and responsibility
to sort through the propaganda of selective facts, distortions,
and images in search of truth.
When a country goes on a war track, stepping out of line
is always hazardous. All kinds of specious accusations fly.
Whether you travel to Baghdad or hold an anti-war sign on
Main Street back home, some people will accuse you of serv-
ing the propaganda interests of the foreign foe. But the only
way to prevent your actions from being misconstrued is to do
nothing. The only way to avoid the danger of having your
words distorted is to keep your mouth shut.
In the functional category of “use it or lose it,” the First
Amendment remains just a partially realized promise. To the
extent that it can be fulfilled, democracy becomes actual
rather than theoretical. But that requires a multiplicity of
voices. And when war demands our silence, the imperative of
dissent becomes paramount.
We need to hear factual information and not let it be
drowned out by the drumbeat of war. We need to think as
clearly as possible. And we need to listen to our own hearts.
Norman Soloman
I listened carefully and heard Powell's effort to prove, without evidence his case for war and I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
posted on February 7, 2003 08:54:08 AM newAs the independent journalist I.F. Stone commented decades ago, “Every government is run by liars, and nothing they say should be believed.” Stone was not equating all governments or asserting that they always lie. But he was pointing out that skepticism is essential, and no government’s claims should be automatically accepted. It is our challenge and responsibility to sort through the propaganda of selective facts, distortions, and images in search of truth.
This is always the conclusion from anyone who has bothered to become educated with history. Governments - even our own, have no compunction against using deceit, distortion, and outright lies when the truth won't get them what they want. This is where people like Linda and Bear run afowl of common sense, even though they can't see it. They write on here about how amazed that they are that I *NEVER* believe a single word that comes from Washington from either party, unless it can be verified, read up on to see how it was taken out of context, or other solid verification. That I and Helen and KRS and others on here HAVE taken the time to find out for ourselves, we are bashed by the lazy-butts who won't go that extra mile in order to hold the truth of a matter.
posted on February 7, 2003 09:42:38 AM new
So the French still aren't on board with us sancting Iraq. Let's take a look at the mighty French military prowess, shall we?
Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare: "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."
Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians. Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.
Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War - Tied
War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.
The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France surrenders?"
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
Borilla,,,,,,Your lack of common sense & a fruitful thought process continue to NOT amaze me.
[ edited by bear1949 on Feb 7, 2003 09:50 AM ]
posted on February 7, 2003 10:26:49 AM new
Ari Fleischer did answer Helen about the division of oil:
Q Since you speak for the President, we have no access to him, can you categorically deny that the United States will take over the oil fields when we win this war? Which is apparently obvious and you're on your way and I don't think you doubt your victory. Oil -- is it about oil?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, as I've told you many times, if this had anything to do with oil, the position of the United States would be to lift the sanctions so the oil could flow. This is not about that. This is about saving lives by protecting the American people --
Q We will not take over the oil fields, are you saying that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The oil fields belong to the people of Iraq, the government of Iraq, all of Iraq. All the resources --
Q And we don't want any part of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- of Iraq need to be administered by the Iraqi government. And any action that is taken in Iraq is going to be taken with an eye toward the future of Iraq. And that involves the protecting of infrastructure, providing humanitarian aid. And that needs to be done by the Iraqi people.
Q There are reports that we've divided up the oil already, divvied it up with the Russians and French and so forth. Isn't that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: What's the source of these reports that you cite?
Q They're all over the place.
MR. FLEISCHER: Can you be more specific?
Q That we have just -- we will take the oil fields and then we will parcel out the oil.
MR. FLEISCHER: But you cited some reports. I'm just curious about -- if you can be more specific about the source of these reports that you're citing here today.
Q -- have you been reading the newspapers?
MR. FLEISCHER: Can you be more specific? Anywhere in particular?
Q Senator Lugar said it.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's no truth to that, that we would divide up the oil fields. As I --
Q Your own people have said something -- but I'm sorry I can't pinpoint it.
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, the infrastructure of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq. And that is going to be respected.
Q Why should you decide what is their infrastructure or their government?
MR. FLEISCHER: Obviously, if the regime changes there will be a new government. And the government will represent the people of Iraq.
posted on February 7, 2003 12:02:06 PM new
on another note.....I know (at least I've been told) Saddam has done some very horrific things, but if you were sitting on top of the worlds richest oil reserves wouldn't you want WMD to defend yourself?
ed. spelling
[ edited by drkosmos on Feb 7, 2003 12:02 PM ]
